Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Historically, Libertarianism is an anti-statist philosophy. Liberalism, as is consistently illustrated by it's current proponents, advocates more government control over everything.

Personally, I'd rather deal with the profit driven corporations than the power driven government that has usurped the rule of law in order to be able to send armed minions to compel my compliance with their decrees.

There is nothing truly liberal about liberalism unless it's definition is bastardized to include a liberal expansion of government power and control to the detriment of the freedoms of individuals.

Government should be acting in a manner to ensure and increase personal liberty rather than enhance it's own power. Government and it's employees were intended to work for us rather than strive for our subjugation.

Personally, I'd rather deal with the profit driven corporations than the power driven government that has usurped the rule of law in order to be able to send armed minions to compel my compliance with their decrees.

Corporatism and statism are directly tied to one another. Modern day corporate power is derived from the state.

Corporatism and statism are directly tied to one another. Modern day corporate power is derived from the state.

You just created a false dichotomy.

I disagree. Government and it's power and profit driven members created the dichotomy.

Government was intended to protect the rights and freedoms of the states and their individual citizens. That intent was long ago abandoned and replaced by an unending quest for more power and profit.

Corporations may well have provided a great deal of the profit that resulted in runaway government but the true offender is and has been the corrupt politicians. Had they adhered to their oaths of office self-promoting corporatism would have been nipped in the bud. Neither prominent party gets a free pass in shameful usurpation of power.

I disagree. Government and it's power and profit driven members created the dichotomy.

Government was intended to protect the rights and freedoms of the states and their individual citizens. That intent was long ago abandoned and replaced by an unending quest for more power and profit.

Corporations may well have provided a great deal of the profit that resulted in runaway government but the true offender is and has been the corrupt politicians. Had they adhered to their oaths of office self-promoting corporatism would have been nipped in the bud. Neither prominent party gets a free pass in shameful usurpation of power.

Corporations derive their power from the state. From Roderick Long.

Corporations tend to fear competition, because competition exerts downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on salaries; moreover, success on the market comes with no guarantee of permanency, depending as it does on outdoing other firms at correctly figuring out how best to satisfy forever-changing consumer preferences, and that kind of vulnerability to loss is no picnic. It is no surprise, then, that throughout U.S. history corporations have been overwhelmingly hostile to the free market. Indeed, most of the existing regulatory apparatusóincluding those regulations widely misperceived as restraints on corporate powerówere vigorously supported, lobbied for, and in some cases even drafted by the corporate elite.[1]Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now | Roderick Long | Cato Unbound

Corporations tend to fear competition, because competition exerts downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on salaries; moreover, success on the market comes with no guarantee of permanency, depending as it does on outdoing other firms at correctly figuring out how best to satisfy forever-changing consumer preferences, and that kind of vulnerability to loss is no picnic. It is no surprise, then, that throughout U.S. history corporations have been overwhelmingly hostile to the free market. Indeed, most of the existing regulatory apparatusóincluding those regulations widely misperceived as restraints on corporate powerówere vigorously supported, lobbied for, and in some cases even drafted by the corporate elite.[1]Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now | Roderick Long | Cato Unbound

I don't understand your disagreement.

Perhaps I stated it poorly.

In a nutshell I'm saying without corrupt government, corporatism would have little chance for unrestrained advancement. Government must run interference for unprincipled corporate interests.

Without government influence (and it's ability to compel compliance) free market and consumer restraint would have the ability to reign in destructive and profit driven corporate efforts.

Without government influence (and it's ability to compel compliance) free market and consumer restraint would have the ability to reign in destructive and profit driven corporate efforts.

You are kidding me. The state is not the cohesive glue that holds together our current paradigm.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.